Is this a good sign?

[N1kPaz]

Well...yesterday I heard that the Iraqi's had moved artillery to within striking distance of our forces in Kuwait. Considering the comments made by Bush, if I were them (and I intended to fight) I would have attacked us immediately in an attempt to weaken our forces (the artillery will be destroyed, but you could at least cause some casualities before the US turns it all to a fine powder).

It kind of makes me wonder if they will truly fight. Since war is apparenty innevitable, why not strike first???

cowardice???


or.. reason????

comments??? (anti-americans need not respond)

[CavemanJ]

If Saddam were to use that artillery to fire at US/Allied forces first then all the diplo-crap going on right now stops and the fight starts.  The instant the first shell hits the ground.  Then the WMD issue goes to the back burner and we've got all the justification needed to go wipe out Saddam.

I also think that if Iraq fired first it would change the minds of the anti-war folks, increasing public opinion for the war (which is already running around 60% in favor I think?)

[Sikboy]

I think the US would be happiest of all if Iraq moved all of their forces to within range of attacking Kuwait. Fighting in the wide open is the best chance we have of destroying the military while inflicting the least amount of civilian casualties.

But that's not going to happen. I've heard reports that the Republican Guard units are almost all taking positions in and around Bahgdad. If I had to guess, I would say that these artillary units are there as a subtle threat to use chem-bio weapons to slow the US invasion.

I don't know how well a pre-emptive artillary barrage (using conventional exposives) would really work against positions which have been dug in for 12 years.

-Sik